Banishing Glyphosate

Recommendations

Info

14 Banishing Glyphosate Health of American citizens deteriorating One argument for the safety of GM food and their associated pesticides is that the US has been consuming them for years without ill effect. However, in the absence of labelling GM foods, it is illegitimate to make such a claim. On the contrary, there has been a drastic deterioration of public health in the US since GM crops were introduced. A 2014 publication by Swanson and colleagues plots the rise of 20 chronic diseases using available US government data, all correlating closely with increasing glyphosate application to corn and soy crops, especially over the past several years. The diseases included cancers, Parkinson’s (see Box 2), autism, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, digestive disease and kidney failure [77]. Correlation does not prove causation, but such strong association certainly cannot be dismissed, especially in combination with the plethora of other evidence from laboratory studies, and the experiences of doctors in their clinics and farmers in the fields. (For a detailed analysis of the study please see Chapter 2). Though heart disease had not been studied as extensively as cancers and birth defects in relation to glyphosate, the above study implicates its role in cardiac dysfunction. This is corroborated by the new finding that glyphosate formulations cause abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia) by interfering with the electrical activity of heart cells in rabbits [78]. Further validation of the first study comes from new analyses of Centre for Disease Control (CDC) discharge data (1998-2010) [79], which show stark rises in rates of many diseases including lymph disorders; skin disorders; new-born blood, lung, genitourinary and heart disorders; congenital eye and heart disorders; as well as metabolic disorders. The incidence rates correlate tightly with the rise in glyphosate use in the US. Use of other common pesticides were also tracked (2,4-D and dicamba), which has been declining in recent years, suggesting that these pesticides maybe be at least partly responsible for disease rates in earlier years of the analysis, while glyphosate could be responsible for the rises in more recent years. Similar deteriorations in health is occurring in US wildlife (Montana State), where many conditions such as thyroid and congenital defects have been rising in the last 20 years. A new study published in 2015 finds a correlation between glyphosate use and pineal gland pathology. The pineal gland is located in the brain and is known to regulate circadian rhythm through melatonin secretion. Glyphosate is hypothesised to disrupt melatonin metabolism, as well as pineal gland function through aluminium-induced hypoxia that results from the metal chelating properties of glyphosate. In this way, glyphosate use tightly correlates with the rises in sleep disorders as well as other disorders with symptoms of sleep dysfunction such as autism and dementia [80]. It is becoming clear that glyphosate has multiple toxicities that link it to many diseases through its metal chelating, antibiotic, endocrine disrupting, and genotoxic properties. Glyphosate also has the ability to block cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity, a class of enzymes involved in detoxifying xenobiotics amongst other things. Glyphosate therefore not only is a toxin in its own right, but enhances the toxicity of other chemicals by preventing the CYP enzymes from detoxifying the body [81]. Americans are definitely getting sicker in numerous ways highly correlated with adopting GM crops and rise in glyphosate use (Chapter 2) and, as shown by all the testimonials from Moms across America, peoples’ health improves after removing GMOs and glyphosate residues from their foods by buying organic [71]. Environmental toxicity a concern for biodiversity, agriculture and sustainability The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is increasingly compromising the effectiveness of the herbicide. There are now a reported 32 species of resistant weeds, up from 23 a year ago as recorded by the Weed Science organisation in the US [82]. In Brazil, an aggressive spread of weeds prompted a former DuPont agronomist to acknowledge the difficulties faced by farmers cultivating glyphosate-tolerant GM crops both in Brazil and Argentina [83]. Monsanto now recommends an ‘integrated weed management’ strategy that includes tilling the soil (of previously no-till land) and using multiple herbicides. The main selling points of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) GM crop system was to reduce environmental damage through no-tillage agriculture and glyphosate use – a supposedly ‘safe’ herbicide compared to older chemicals. Not only is glyphosate toxic to health and the environment, but a cocktail of even more lethal herbicides have to be deployed to deal with glyphosate-resistant weeds, and an end to no till agriculture, resulting in further soil erosion. In short, we have an ecological and agronomic disaster. Glyphosate toxicity to wildlife is well-documented. Many species, including aquatic organisms, reptiles, beneficial soil organisms including certain microbes and worms have been shown in scientific studies to be affected by glyphosate exposure (see [84] Ban GMOS Now, ISIS special report). This includes chronic and acute toxicity to the model aquatic organism Daphnia magna at below accepted thresholds for glyphosate presence in US freshwater [85]. A 2015 study also finds that glyphosate at concentrations below the permitted level for soybeans in the US causes increased mortality, reduced reproduction and delayed development in Daphnia magna [86]. Amphibians, the most endangered animals in the world, are so sensitive to glyphosate that 78 % of frogs died in one study on being exposed to Roundup herbicide [87]. Glyphosate has been shown to stimulate the growth of soil fungi, and to increase the pathogenicity of soil pathogens such as Xylella fastidosa while numerous beneficial soil organisms are decimated [88] (see [89] Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47). The latest study on soil organisms concluded that non-target organisms are at risk of local extinction after finding sub-lethal doses of glyphosate reduced fertility as well as survival of juvenile and adult E. fetida worms [90]. Monarch butterfly decline has been linked to glyphosate destruction of the milkweed in the US, the only food source for its larvae. Their migration from the US is at an all-time low and has been declining for the last 17 years (1994-5 to 2010-2011) (see [91] Glyphosate and Monarch Butterfly Decline, SiS 52) [92]. This decline has prompted a move to protect the butterflies under the Endangered Species Act by over 200 organisations and 40 scientists in November 2014 [93]. Even 52 members of US congress have written to the President over the issue, also recommending putting them on the endangered species list in order to give legal muscle to attempts to protect them from “widespread overuse of glyphosate” [94]. A new report on a Welsh nature reserve documents the decline in insects including beneficial pollinators such as bees as glyphosate levels increase (see Chapter 10). This is consistent with a 2015 study showing that sub-lethal doses of glyphosate impair honeybee navigation. These findings suggests that exposure to levels commonly found in agricultural settings impairs the cognitive capacities needed to retrieve and integrate spatial information for a successful return to the hive [95]. Not only are non-target organisms negatively affected, but also the target crops. Glyphosate’s metal chelating properties reduce the micronutrients available to the plant, which it needs to maintain a fully-functioning immune system, thereby increasing its susceptibility to disease. This mechanism is thought to underlie the spread of over 40 crop diseases in glyphosate-tolerant GM Institute of Science in Society
15 crops (see Chapter 8 and Box 3). Indeed, USDA senior scientist Don Huber states that glyphosate’s ability to kill plants is through the destruction of their immune system. This was clearly demonstrated by his experiments showing that non-GM plants grown in a sterile soil do not die when sprayed with glyphosate as the pathogens are not there to take advantage of the compromised immune system (see Chapter 9). A reduction in mineral nutrients has health impacts on those eating the crops such as abnormalities in calves that are caused by manganese deficiency, which are on the rise and may well result from glyphosate chelation [96]. Farm animals are further suffering from other illnesses (and birth defects) as described by the Danish pig farmer earlier. Similar problems have been reported in Germany, where cows are suffering from chronic infections such as botulism [67] and in the US, with for example, the veterinarian Art Dunham reports botulism in dairy cows, as well as reproductive problems, bloody bowels, rickets and viral diseases in hogs [97]. As a result of the problems faced by farmers, many are now moving away from GM and glyphosate-based systems. The US is seeing a growth in the non-GM seed market (see [98] Global Status of GMO and non-GMO crops, SiS 62). Agriculture experts such Howard Vlieger are helping 300-400 farmers in the US switch from GM to non-GM crops without glyphosate use due to its ill effects to soil, plants and animals [99]. Glyphosate-tolerant crops have also been shown to need more water and do worse in drought situations (see [100] GM Crops and Water – A recipe for Disaster SiS 56, and [101] GM Crops Destroyed by US Drought but non-GM Varieties Flourish, SiS 56). This is consistent with their health being compromised by glyphosate. While GM crops are causing problems for farmers, non-GM crops are leading the way in providing drought- and salt-tolerant varieties, which makes sense when one considers that the majority of traits are highly complex, involving multiple genes and pathways and therefore too complicated to mimic with crude genetic engineering techniques (see [102] Genetic Modification Trails Conventional Breeding By Far, SiS 64). Regulatory science corrupt, ban glyphosate locally Glyphosate re-assessment by the EU commission was performed in 2014, not only re-approving glyphosate, but approving increased residue levels for food and feed, with the final decision expected in 2015. The reassessment was performed by industry, though Germany acted as the rapporteur state, submitting the renewal assessment report to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (see Chapter 11). This report relied on summary assessments provided by the Glyphosate Task Force, which consists of Monsanto and other chemical companies such as Syngenta UK and Dow Italy. Assessments were made on glyphosate excluding commercial formulations most frequently used such as Roundup, and focused on studies showing less toxic results. The EU has recently also set up a consortium with the purported aims of providing “comprehensive reviews of the health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of GM plants – considering both risks and possible benefits” called the GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence). They also claim that the work will lead to improve risk assessment standards, testing various trial methods. The project is rife with conflicts of interest; many members of the consortium work with institutions funded by industry and further, one of the member institutions is a lobby group advocating lower regulatory standards for GM plants, as revealed by a Testbiotech report [103]. It comes as no surprise that the results of a 90-day feeding trail with MON810 maize conducted by GRACE reported no ill effects [104]. It has been well-documented and previously explained in Ban GMOS Now [82], that adjuvants present in glyphosate formulation products such as POEA, as well as glyphosate metabolites like AMPA have their own toxicity and moreover, that glyphosate and the adjuvants together are far more toxic than glyphosate alone. A new 2014 study by Professor Séralini’s group further confirms this, showing for the first time that glyphosate formulation products (as well as insecticide and fungicides) are far more toxic than glyphosate alone at concentrations well below agricultural dilutions [105]. Using human cell lines (HEK293, JEG3 and HepG2), they showed formulations to cause significant reductions in cell viability at concentrations 125 times less than glyphosate alone, challenging the relevance of the current acceptable daily intake (ADI). Séralini’s group, in their latest review, have compiled the evidence of glyphosate formulations and their toxicity at levels below regulatory EU limits, clearly highlighting this concern, as well as other regulatory limitations such as the complete absence of testing at ADI levels [106]. Adding to this are new data showing that Roundup at 10 mg/kg bw/d (body weight per day) is sufficient to cause endocrine disruption in male rats. Though endocrine disruption is well documented with glyphosate, this is the first to explore adrenal gland steroidogenesis effects, with levels of circulating corticosterone being affected [107]. Again, these concentrations are well below the ADI set for glyphosate. With the work finding effects even at the lowest tested levels, it confirms that we do not yet know what the “safe” levels of exposure are, officially termed the NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level), from which ADIs are derived in regulatory risk assessments. Furthermore, no other effects were seen at the lowest dose, showing that such modes of toxicity are being missed in current risk assessments which do not include analysis of endocrine effects. It is also important to note that so far, no studies have yet been carried out on the effects of pesticide cocktail mixtures, a far more likely scenario in real life. It is no wonder that the EU commission is refusing to let independent experts gain access to the renewal assessment report by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) [108]. To conclude The evidence of glyphosate toxicity to both human and animal health and the ecosystem has built up to such an extent that some governments are taking action. As mentioned earlier, both El Salvador and Sri Lanka have led the way. Colombia, following the WHO report, has also decided to suspend its aerial spraying of cocoa fields in the US-led war on drugs. The Netherlands successfully banned its sale to private individuals [109]. Russia has banned the import and cultivation of all GM crops due to health and environmental concerns [110], while a section of the Chinese army has reportedly banned its consumption [111]. In Brazil a public prosecutor is also looking to suspend its use [112]. For those of us who are not being protected by our governments, it is time to start initiating our own campaigns, banning it first from our home, our community, our schools, local counties, regions. www.i-sis.org.uk
Page 3 and 4: Banishing Glyphosate Authors Dr Eva
Page 5 and 6: 5 widespread GM soy cultivation. Th
Page 8 and 9: 8 Banishing Glyphosate 1 Converging
Page 10 and 11: 10 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Evide
Page 12 and 13: 12 Banishing Glyphosate Box 2 Evide
Page 16 and 17: 16 Banishing Glyphosate 2 Marked De
Page 18 and 19: 18 Banishing Glyphosate 3 Devastati
Page 20 and 21: 20 Banishing Glyphosate The toxic a
Page 22 and 23: 22 Banishing Glyphosate Table 1 Sum
Page 24 and 25: 24 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 Ag
Page 26 and 27: 26 Banishing Glyphosate Rising Ca 2
Page 28 and 29: 28 Banishing Glyphosate data show s
Page 30 and 31: 30 Banishing Glyphosate prostate ca
Page 32 and 33: 32 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 2 In
Page 34 and 35: 34 Banishing Glyphosate a thyroid c
Page 36 and 37: 36 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 3 Cy
Page 38 and 39: 38 Banishing Glyphosate of cancer c
Page 40 and 41: 40 Banishing Glyphosate plants and
Page 42 and 43: 42 Banishing Glyphosate Glyphosate
Page 44 and 45: 44 Banishing Glyphosate 7 Changing
Page 46 and 47: 46 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 Ra
Page 48 and 49: 48 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 1 In
Page 50 and 51: 50 Banishing Glyphosate Figure 3 St
Page 52 and 53: 52 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Some
Page 54 and 55: 54 Banishing Glyphosate (Bradyrhizo
Page 56 and 57: 56 Banishing Glyphosate ciencies is
Page 58 and 59: 58 Banishing Glyphosate Box 1 Extra
Page 60 and 61: 60 Banishing Glyphosate crickets at
Page 62 and 63: 62 Banishing Glyphosate Glyphosate
Page 64 and 65:
64 Banishing Glyphosate 11 Scandal
Page 66 and 67:
66 Banishing Glyphosate The entire
Page 68 and 69:
68 Banishing Glyphosate Group 3: Un
Page 70 and 71:
70 Banishing Glyphosate study (Sér
Page 72 and 73:
72 Banishing Glyphosate References
Page 74 and 75:
74 Banishing Glyphosate tion of fem
Page 76 and 77:
76 Banishing Glyphosate http://www.
Page 78 and 79:
78 Banishing Glyphosate oads/2015/0
Page 80 and 81:
80 Banishing Glyphosate 12. Cohort
Page 82 and 83:
82 Banishing Glyphosate Chapter 6 1
Page 84 and 85:
84 Banishing Glyphosate 15. Fernand
Page 86 and 87:
86 Banishing Glyphosate 310(6):591-
Page 88:
88 Banishing Glyphosate About The I
show all

Banishing Glyphosate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?